Crime & LawTwo-part
IELTS Essay: CCTV Surveillance in Public Places (Band 9 vs 6.5)
In short
Below is a full Band 9 model answer to this IELTS Writing Task 2 question, the same question written at Band 6.5, and a criterion-by-criterion breakdown of exactly what separates them — so you can see what to change in your own writing. Then check your essay with the free tool.
The question
In many cities, the use of video surveillance cameras in public places is increasing rapidly. Why is this happening? Is it a positive or a negative development?
How to approach a Two-part question
A two-part question contains two direct questions; you must answer both, and roughly equally. Plan one body paragraph per question so neither is neglected — writing 200 words on the first part and 50 on the second is a common way to lose Task Response marks even when the English is strong.
The plan
- 01Introduction: paraphrase the spread of CCTV and preview both answers - the causes, and a verdict that it is broadly positive with safeguards.
- 02Body 1 (why): cheaper technology, public demand for safety after high-profile crimes, and the value of footage as evidence.
- 03Body 2 (evaluation): argue it is a positive development - deterrence and detection - while acknowledging the privacy cost and the need for regulation.
- 04Conclusion: restate both answers - clear causes, and a cautiously positive verdict.
Band 9 model answer
Cameras now watch over streets, stations and squares in almost every major city, and their numbers continue to climb. This essay will first explain why surveillance has expanded so rapidly and then argue that, provided it is properly regulated, the development is a positive one.
The expansion has three main drivers. Most obviously, the technology has become dramatically cheaper and more capable: a network that once required costly film and constant monitoring can now run on inexpensive digital cameras with automated storage. At the same time, public demand for visible security has grown, particularly after high-profile crimes and attacks, and installing cameras is one of the most conspicuous responses a mayor can offer. Finally, courts and police forces have come to rely on footage as evidence, since a recording can identify a suspect or clear an innocent person far more reliably than eyewitness memory.
On balance, I consider this a positive development, though not an unconditional one. Cameras demonstrably help solve crimes and reassure people using car parks, underpasses and night-time transport, and unlike many security measures they operate without stopping or searching anyone. The genuine danger lies in unaccountable use: constant observation can chill lawful behaviour, and footage can be misused if nobody controls who watches it. These risks argue for strict rules on retention, access and transparency rather than for abandoning a tool that plainly works.
In conclusion, surveillance has spread because it has become cheap, popular with a safety-conscious public and useful to the justice system. Handled within clear legal limits, it makes cities safer at an acceptable cost, and I therefore regard its rise as a largely positive development.
The same question at Band 6.5
Nowadays, we can see security cameras in many public places in the cities, and the number is increasing very fast. In this essay, I will explain the reasons of this trend and give my opinion about whether it is positive or negative.
There are some reasons why the cameras are increasing. Firstly, the technology becomes cheaper than before, so the government and shops can buy many cameras easily. Secondly, the crime is a big problem in the cities, and people want to feel safe when they go outside. When there are cameras, the criminals are afraid to do bad things because the police can catch them easily. Thirdly, the video from cameras can be used like evidence in the court, so the police like to use them for their investigation.
In my opinion, this development is positive more than negative. The main benefit is that cameras reduce the crime. For example, in the car park or in the train station at night, people feel more safe because of the cameras. Also, if some crime happens, the police can find the criminal quickly by watching the video. However, some people worry about their privacy because the cameras are recording everybody all the time. This is a real problem, but I think safety is more important than privacy in the public places.
In conclusion, the surveillance cameras are increasing because they are cheap and useful for stopping the crime. Although there is a privacy problem, I believe this is a positive development because it makes the society more safe for everyone.
What separates them, criterion by criterion
| Criterion | Band 9 | Band 6.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Task Response | Answers both parts fully and equally: three developed causes, then a reasoned verdict that weighs benefits against the privacy risk and resolves it with regulation. | Addresses both parts with relevant ideas, but the causes are asserted rather than explained, and the privacy concern is dismissed in one sentence instead of being weighed. |
| Coherence & Cohesion | One paragraph per question, each with internal progression; cohesion is varied ('At the same time', 'The genuine danger lies in', 'These risks argue for'). | Clear two-part structure, but sequenced almost entirely with 'Firstly/Secondly/Thirdly' and 'Also', producing a list rather than an argument. |
| Lexical Resource | Precise topic language: 'deterrence' implied through 'conspicuous responses', plus 'unaccountable use', 'chill lawful behaviour', 'rules on retention, access and transparency'. | Everyday vocabulary that communicates but repeats ('cameras', 'safe', 'crime') and includes unnatural phrases ('used like evidence', 'positive more than negative'). |
| Grammatical Range & Accuracy | Complex sentences with embedded clauses and accurate punctuation throughout; errors are essentially absent. | Simple structures with recurring article errors ('the crime is a big problem', 'reduce the crime') and comparison errors ('more safe'), though meaning stays clear. |
Examiner's note
Two-part questions reward balance, and both essays deserve credit for answering each question in its own paragraph. The gap opens in depth: the Band 9 answer explains why each cause operates and treats the privacy objection as something to be resolved, not waved away, while the Band 6.5 answer names good ideas without developing them. Note also how the Band 9 verdict is conditional ('provided it is properly regulated') - a sign of the precise thinking the top bands require.
Vocabulary from the Band 9 answer
| Word / phrase | Meaning |
|---|---|
| surveillance | close observation, especially of public spaces or suspects |
| a deterrent | something that discourages people from acting, e.g. from committing crime |
| high-profile crimes | crimes that attract wide public and media attention |
| eyewitness memory | what a person who saw an event can recall, often unreliable |
| unaccountable use | use of power with no obligation to explain or justify it |
| to chill lawful behaviour | to discourage people from doing legal things because they feel watched |
| data retention | how long recorded information is stored |
| transparency | openness about how something is done or decided |
| within clear legal limits | controlled by well-defined laws |
Frequently asked questions
How should I split a two-part question across paragraphs?
Give each question its own body paragraph and roughly equal development. The most common failure is spending 200 words on the first question and a rushed sentence on the second - that caps Task Response even when the language is strong.
Does 'positive or negative development' require picking one side?
You need a clear verdict, but it can be conditional - 'largely positive provided it is regulated' is a strong Band 9 position. What you cannot do is describe both sides and never decide.
Should the introduction answer both questions?
A brief preview helps: one sentence acknowledging the trend and one signalling your causes and your verdict. It shows the examiner immediately that both parts will be covered.